Thief And The Cobbler

Featured on alibris.com
( 4.6/5.0 ★ | 423 downloads )
-- Click the link to download --

https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.26
530096009757090&type=15&murl=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2
Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F0096009757090
Thief And The Cobbler

ISBN: 0096009757090
Category: Media > DVDs & Movies
File Fomat: PDF, EPUB, DOC...
File Details: 7.4 MB
Language: English
Website: alibris.com
Short description: Run time: 72 mins. Originally released: 1995.
Language: English. Factory Sealed Brand New DVD Master animator
Richard Williams (best known for his work on Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
) created this visually dazzling full-length cartoon. Tack (voice of
Matthew Broderick) is a shy and humble cobbler in love with the
beautiful Princess Yum Yum (voice of Jennifer Beals). Tack gets his
chance to impress the Princess when he's pressed into service to help
defeat a wicked sorcerer, Zigzag (voice of Vincen

DOWNLOAD: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&
offerid=1494105.26530096009757090&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2F
www.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F0096009757090
 Thief And The Cobbler

• Click the link: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.2653009600975709

• Don’t miss the chance to explore our extensive collection of high-quality resources, books, and guides on
our website. Visit us regularly to stay updated with new titles and gain access to even more valuable
materials.
.
 254 THE HISTORIA LAUSIACA OF PALLADIUS. at the end of
the office the monks used to pray in silence for a time (Dial. 11. 4);
but in his Rule he says that the prayer made in common is to be cut
quite short—omnino brevietur—and that when the sign is given all
are to rise and leave the oratory; and of private prayer he says it
should be short and pure—brevis et pura—“ unless it be prolonged
by the inspiration of Divine grace” (cc. 20, 52). The daily psalmody
consisted of forty psalms with canticles and lections, and can hardly
have taken more than from four to five hours: the gradual
multiplication of psalms, offices, devotions, and conventual masses,
which absorbed the greater part of the working day in the
Benedictine houses during the later Middle Ages, began to set in
only with St Benedict of Aniane in the ninth century, and reached its
full development at Clunil. Thus from whatever side we look at the
matter, we see that St Benedict deliberately eliminated austerity as it
had been understood and practised before his time. No doubt a life
according to the letter of the Rule would be held to be a very
austere one at the present day: but in the eyes of St Benedict's
contemporaries it would not have appeared so. The regime stood
between the life of good Christians in the world and the life in severe
monasteries ; and when compared with the common law of the
Church (e.g. for Lent), or the usual monastic observances of those
days, St Benedict’s Rule cannot have appeared to be anything else
than what he said it was, a minima inchoationis regula. But, besides
the elimination of austerity, there was in St Benedict’s reconstruction
of the monastic life a positive element ; and this too took the form of
a break with the past. JI have shown that a strong individualism was
the key-note of Egyptian monachism in all its phases, in Western
Europe hardly less than in Kgypt. St Benedict was a collectivist in the
spiritual order. In place of rivalry in ascetical achievement, he
established a common mode of life, made up of a round of objective
duties,—public common prayer, work, and reading; and the
sanctification of the monk was to be sought by living the life of the
community. St Benedict made it a point of virtue “that a monk do
nothing but what the common rule of the monastery and the
example of 1 Bishop, Origin of the Prymer (Early English Text
Society, Original Series, 109).
 EPILOGUE. 255 seniors exhorts” (c. 7); and that “in all
things all follow the rule as their master” (¢. 3). In Lent indeed, as in
St Pachomius’ monasteries, each one is exhorted to add something
voluntarily to his ordinary service of God; but, the monks are not
left, as there (Hist. Laus. A 20), to pit themselves one against the
other, but each one is obliged to obtain the abbot’s blessing on what
he undertakes, “else it will be deputed unto pride, not unto reward”
(c. 49). There is no suggestion in the Rule of what are now called
“penitential exercises”: if exhortations and warning failed, corporal
chastisement was resorted to in the case of refractory monks; but it
was a punishment, not a mortification, and it was not self-inflicted..
When a neighbouring hermit chained himself to a rock, St Benedict
rebuked him, saying: “Tf thou be God’s servant, let the chain of
Christ, and not any chain of iron hold thee” (Dval. 1. 16). St Benedict
says, indeed, that the observance of his Rule will only show that “we
possess in some measure uprightness of manners and the beginning
of a good life!,” adding that those who press forward to the
perfection of holy living will find the height of perfection in the lives
and teaching of the Egyptian Fathers; and he orders the frequent
reading of Cassian, the Vitae Patrum and St Basil’s Rules (c. 73). But
though he thus holds out higher possibilities, they do not enter into
the practical scope of his Rule. Similarly St Benedict speaks with
admiration of the eremitical life, which then formed an integral part
of European monachism, and was commonly regarded not only as
the most perfect realisation of the monastic life, but as the goal to
be aimed at in practice by those who had the necessary courage and
strength in virtue; but he expressly excludes it from his Rule, and
says that he legislates for cenobites alone fe. 1). | This twofold
break with the past, in the elimination of austerity and in the sinking
of the individual in the community, made St Benedict’s Rule less a
development than a revolution in 1 Ut hance obseruantes in
monasteriis aliquatenus uel honestatem morum aut initium
conuersationis nos demonstremus habere,
 256 THE HISTORIA LAUSIACA OF PALLADIUS. monachism.
It may be almost called a new creation; and it was destined to
prove, as the subsequent history shows, peculiarly adapted to the
new races that were repeopling Western Europe. The fundamental
changes effected by St Benedict in the conception of the monastic
life go far to explain why, on the one hand, the Benedictine form of
monachism easily and generally made its way among populations
Teutonic or partially Teutonised; while, on the other hand, it never
found a congenial home among purely Celtic races.
 APPENDIX I Historia Monachorum m Aegypto (supra, p.
15). The subjects to be dealt with in this Appendix fall under the
following heads: (i) The original language—Greek, not Latin. (ii) The
Latin version. (iii) The Syriac and other Oriental versions. (iv) The
History of the Text. (v) The Authorship. (i) The Original Language—
Greek, not Latin. This is a point which does not at all affect the
validity of any view put forward in these pages concerning the
Lausiac History. Still it has an important bearing on the general
question of the sources of early monastic history; and as I have on
p. 15 expressed my belief that the Greek is the original, while Dr
Preuschen has arrived at the opposite conclusion (Palladius u.
Rufinus, 196), it will be in place to show reason for adhering to my
former judgment. For this purpose it will be best to institute a
careful comparison of the two texts in some one of the longer Lives
in which the Greek and Latin run closely together. I select the Life of
Apollos or Apollonius (gr. 8, /at. 7), which possesses this advantage
for purposes of comparison, that the Greek text stands in Migne free
from all foreign accretions (P. G. xxxIv. 1137 ff.). In the following
references P= Preuschen, M=Migne, R= Rosweyd. "ATOAAG,
aTrod@ Sid gov Thy codiay Tay ev AiyiTT@ copar. P 33 Apolloni, per
te perdam sapientiam sapientium in Aegypto. : jee The play of
words on Apollos’ name, which obviously suggested the citation (1
Cor. i. 19), is lost in the Latin. (M and some mss. repeat the name ;
but P’s reading is certainly correct.) yevenoets por adv trepiovarov
(nrorny Kadov epyov. P 33 generabis mihi populum substantialem et
perfectum, aemulatorem Pr operum bonorum. B. P. 17
 P 34 M 1138 R 460 P 34 M 1138 R 460 P 35 M 1138 R 460
P 35—6 M 1138 R 460 P 36 M 1138 R 460 P 36 M 1138 R 461 P37 M
1139 R 461 258 APPENDIX I. Cf. Tit. ii. 14 kadapion éavtd adv
mepiovo.ov (nroriy carov epyov. The regular Latin renderings of
mepiotowv are O. L. abundantem and Vg. acceptabilem : nowhere
except here is substantialem found in Tit. ii. 14; but it is worth
noting that at this time St Jerome was translating €riovatov by
supersubstantialem. Substantialem et perfectum is an attempt on
the part of Rufinus to translate the difficult Greek Aadv repiotovwv. A
Latin writer simply quoting the text would not have thus gone out of
his way to try to bring out the force of the Greek, but would have
used a current version. The perfectum may have been suggested by
Lk. i. 17 parare Domino plebem perfectam. In Deut. xiv. 2 Aabv
repiovcroy is rendered populum peculiarem in Vg.; O. L. vac. 7
Tpopy S€ avrov Téws kabamep mpatov mapa Oeov e& dunxdvov
exopnyeiro. €v TH epnuw yap arta bu’ ayyédov 7 Tpody Exopicero.
Cibo autem magis coelesti quam humano utebatur. The Latin
appears to be a paraphrase ; it is vague and common-place
compared with the Greek. To Sé€ &vdupa adrov Av 6 AeBir@v, dvrep
Tives KoADBLiov mpowayopevovat, kal Aévriov puxpov el thy Kearny
avrov. Indumentum ejus stuppeum colobium erat, quod apud illos
lebetes appellatur, et linteum quod collum et caput obuolueret. The
Latin explains the material of the garment, but puts in the first place
the name colobiwm, which was a latinised word, and then says it is
called lebetes (i.e. lebiton) by the Egyptians. Similarly in St Jerome’s
Preface to the Reg. Pach. (P. LZ. L. 276), and in the Latin Vita Pach.
(Rosw. 117), a clause is inserted explaining the word Jebzton.
Cassian employs colobium, not lebiton. 6 d5€ ods pev mpos
Oewpiavy mpoceKanreiro, ovs S€ Thy mpaktikny cuveBiBace
pereNOety aperny. alios ad bene operandum, alios ad bene
intelligendum prouocabat. The recognised Greek antithetical terms
dewpia and mpaxtixn are paraphrased in the Latin. pnd aypt axons
mapakAnOjva vr’ adrav avacyopevos. om. Lat.—the meaning of the
Greek was perhaps obscure. Aaprradnpdpos ayyeXos. angelus
ingenti luce resplendens. i THY OedOev EMOodvoar Tois ddoyws
Karexopévors EhevOepiav mrapioeiv. quam diuinae uirtuti obsistere,
quae eorum cura gerebat. The Greek here can hardly have arisen
from the very common-place Latin. érav THy amdbeay Kai THY
dvope&iay KTHonobe. si nulla uobis passio fuerit erga mundana
desideria. The pithy and technical Greek seems clearly the original.
 APPENDIX I. 259 droxadvweis Ewpa Twas. P 37
reuelationes ei plurimae ostendebantur. 7 i Apollos’ monks are
compared to dyyedixny Twa orpariav Kexoopnpéver P 38 KOgp@
tmavtit Aevxopopovvtav. In the Latin this is prosaically rendered :
nua caelestem quemdam et angelicum cernebamus exercitum, in
omnibus uirtutibus adornatum. nullus sane in eis sordidis utebatur
indumentis, sed splendore uestium pariter atque animorum nitebant.
evppavOnri Epnuos Supaoa. P 38 ut laetaretur eremus sitiens. M
1139 - Is. xxxv. 1 (O. L.) laetare desertum sitiens; there is no
authority for io eremus in this passage; an original Latin writer would
have quoted a current version. The Latin goes on: et multi filii ejus
uiderentur in deserto; this seems to be based on Is. liv. 1 (=Gal. iv.
27), which is quoted in full in the Greek. Umép Tov morapiou
VdarTos. P 40 pro aquis pluvialibus., M 7a I do not regard this as
evidence of the Latin being a translation, as pluvialibus is in all
probability a Latin corruption of fluvialibus: it is impossible to
suppose that Rufinus, who had been in Egypt, would speak of
prayers for rain there. @oTe amradXayévras exeibev arroornvat THs
mAavns. P 41 pollicentes ut si eos resoluat his uinculis pariter
quoque erroris in eis M 1140 ; , faa R 462 uincula dissolueret. The
Latin is a paraphrase. tovs idious eis Ta ida améorpewev. P 42 fecit
omnes cum pace discedere. “ a duvardv eivar Tov Oedv éywv TodTO
a’Ta mapacyxeiv. P 42 omnia enim possibilia dicebat esse credenti. M
1145 The Latin is a formal citation (Mk. ix. 22); the Greek is not a
citation Reve at ail. The citation is easily suggested by the Greek; on
the other hand it is unlikely that the Latin citation should have been
dropped by a Greek translator. Kexdptorat cot 6 OWeydvos otros
mpdagpu€. P 42 donatur tibi salus istius pro quo supplicasti. 4 aa :
The Latin is a paraphrase to avoid the difficult words. 6 ovKére
avdpodovos. Waa 45 latro ille iam sanctus. R 462 ov mévTe Tisiv
adedgois. es cum paucis fratribus. R 463 ovvOera Tia axava, P 44
olera ex his quae sale aspersa reponi apud eos solent. M 1146 ovv
Gera Adyava is a regular phrase in the Greek text; it occurs in the R
463 17—2
 P 45 M 1146 R 463 P 46 M 1147 R 464 P 47 M 1147 R 464
P 47 M 1147 R 464 P 48 M 1147 R 464 P 48 M 1148 R 464 P 48 M
1148 R 464 260 APPENDIX I. account of abbot Hor, where in the
Latin it is given as olera composita, without any explanation (cf. P
25, M 1027, R 457). e& apnyavav erpéporto. sine cibo per gratiam
Domini pascebantur. éavtov e€arda@oas (M evard.). om. Lat.; the
Greek is unusual. The monks of Apollos’ monastery did not partake
of food till they had received the Eucharist at the ninth hour (z.e.
about 3p.m.) daily. The Greek continues: ovr Sdrairnbévtes (having
taken food in this way [z.e. after the Eucharist]) they sat and were
taught till 7rd mporovrvior. Then they separated as described. The
Latin takes d6:artnOévres as if it were dvareOévres and translates:
sic usque ad uesperam permanebant, and so has to give them a
meal after their lessons are learnt, post haec iam cibo sumpto. ol Ta
yniva pev povorvres ert Tois ynivas evppaivovra.. hi qui terrena
diligunt super fragilibus et caducis rebus laetantur. The forcible
repetition disappears in the Latin. In the Greek there is an incidental
allusion to 1 Thess. v. 17 ff.; in the Latin it is an actual quotation. dv
trepBornv Oavparos eorwmnoapey, 2.e. “we lost all power of speech
through wonder” every time we heard them. In Lat. “silere de his
melius censeo quam parum digne proloqui.” I set the two following
passages side by side :— TloAAdkts Kat mepi ths vmodoxns TOV
adeApav er ¢ . A - 3 , \ eheyev, OTe’ Aet epyopévous Tovs adeAdovs
mpookuvety. ov yap avTov p . ov yap avTous, > \ \ \ , > adda tov
Oedv mpooekvvnoas. ides yap, pynoi, rov adeAPdv gov, cides Kuplov
Tov Oedy cov. kal TodvTo, pnoi, mapa Tov *ABpaap mapeadndapev.
kat Ort bet eo 0 Ore Tovs adeAovs \ > / / \ mpos avarravow
trapaBiagecOa, mapa Tov At pepadnkapev mapaBvacapevov Tovs
ayyéAous. Multa de hospitalitatis studio disserebat, et praecipiebat
attentius ut aduentantes fratres quasi Domini susciplamus
aduentum. nam et adorari fratres aduentantes propterea, inquit,
traditio habetur, ut certum sit in aduentu eorum aduentum Domini
Jesu haberi, qui dicit : ‘Hospes fui et suscepistis me’ (Mt. xxv. 35, O.
L.): sic’ enim et Abraham suscepit eos qui homines quidem
uidebantur, Dominus autem in eis intelligebatur. interdum autem
etiam contra uoluntatem cogere fratres ad corporalem requiem
sancti Lot exemplum proponebat, qui angelos ui compulsos ad
hospitium domus suae perduxit.
 APPENDIX I. 261 It will be seen at a glance that the beauty
of the Greek is wholly gone in the Latin, and I think that literary
considerations by themselves make it clear that in this passage the
Greek is the original. The Greek owes its superiority very much to
the striking quotation eiSes yap «.7.A.; and Professor Robinson has
pointed out to me that this is an Agraphon cited twice by Clement
Alex. in the same words: «ides yap, pnoi, rov adeddov gov, cides
TOv Oedv cov (Strom. I. 19, 94 and 11. 15, 71), and also by
Tertullian: widiste, inqguit, fratrem, uridisti dominum tuum (De Orat.
26)1. Rufinus did not recognise the citation, and so paraphrased it,
substituting a biblical text for the apocryphal saying; it will hardly be
suggested that a Greek translator or copyist inserted the Agraphon,
—indeed, although it has disappeared, its echo is still plainly
discernible in the Latin. eneucbero Se moda Tovs TA TiOnpa
hopovvras Kal Tovs KopOvTas. P 49 The Greek of this whole passage
is somewhat obscure. Not so the M 1148 Latin, which makes Apollos
attack in the most direct manner ostentatious a ane asceticism: a
citation from the Sermon on the Mount is introduced to bring out the
point. It seems unlikely that a passage so perfectly plain as the Latin
should have been obscured in the process of translation into Greek,
In the Latin we read ferrum in collo circumferent; a Greek would
hardly have rendered this by ra oiSypa opodvres, for oidnpopopety
Means “to bear arms.” Finally, in seven passages of the Greek (P 39.
9, 20; 40. 8; 41. 13; 43. 10, 12; 47. 19) "EdAnves is used in the
sense of “pagans”: in the Latin it is always altered, usually into
gentiles, but once into Aegyptia, and once into eos gui caerimoniis
daemoniacis agebantur. The thirty passages to which attention has
been called supply arguments based on considerations of many
different kinds, and of very varying force. Some are almost decisive
in themselves; others are mere indications. But they all point the
same way; and taken together they amount, I think, to a full
demonstration that in the Life of Apollos the Greek is the original.
And this Life, of course, carries with it the rest of the book. Still, in
order to show that similar evidence is producible from other portions
also, I shall call attention to three or four additional passages.
wxoAdoaTe Kal yv@re, k.T.A. Pit uacate et cognoscite. M 1116 The
Greek follows the Lxx., Ps. xlvi. (xlv.) 11. The ordinary Latin ieee
reading, both O. L. and Vg., was wacate et widete. Cyp. Testim.
indeed has cognoscite; but Mr Burkitt informs me that this text of
the Psalms was quite African, and that it is most unlikely that
Rufinus should have had it: he considers that the probabilities are
entirely in favour of 1 Resch, Agrapha 296 (Texte u. Untersuch. v. 4).
 P 14 M 1122 R 454 P 16 M 1123 R 454 262 APPENDIX J.
cognoscite in this place, being a direct translation of yvare. It was
necessary so to translate it, for the context turns on yvdors and
cognitio, aippov 78n Kai Ondupavis immos yevopevos. sicut equus et
mulus quibus non est intellectus. The Greek is an indirect citation of
Jer. v. 8, tou Ondupaveis éyevnO@noav. In the Latin a more familiar
and obvious, but far less appropriate text, is substituted, Ps. xxxil.
(xxxi.)9. "“Adpov may have suggested quibus non est intellectus.
npOavn Karadurovres. seminecem reliquerunt. The allusion is to Lk.
x. 30, dpévres nudavyj. But the only Latin word used in this text,
whether O. L. or Vg., is semiwiwus, and if the allusion were due to a
Latin author, he would certainly have used it here: seminecem can
only be a translation of nusdav7. I may refer also to the case of
’Ayapews and wicina, already discussed (p. 14). Dr Preuschen admits
that, on the face of it, the readings tell in favour of the Greek being
the original (op. cit. 192); but he thinks it not decisive,—the name
Akoris may have been inserted by a Greek from his own knowledge
of the geography of Egypt; or it may have been omitted by a Latin
copyist. Were there grave reasons for holding the priority of the
Latin, and were Akoris only a “difficulty,” it might be right to sweep it
away in this fashion: but when no strong case has been made out in
favour of the Latin, it is not allowable so to deal with this word
Akoris. And here I am bound to say that Dr Preuschen’s treatment of
the question of the original language seems very inadequate (op. cit.
191—6). Apart from certain @ priori considerations, he advances but
one argument based on internal evidence: in the account of Copres
and Patermuthius (gr. 11, dat. 9) it is related that while Copres was
speaking one of the party fell asleep, and while asleep had a vision;
on awaking he told the vision to his companions “‘in the Latin
tongue.” From this Dr Preuschen argues that Latin is represented as
being the natural language of the travellers, and he thinks that the
statement would hardly have been made in a book written in Greek.
He sees a confirmation of the latter surmise in the fact that in some
Greek MSS. popaori has been altered into prya, thus showing that
the statement seemed strange to a Greek. He points out, too, that
the work was written in Rufinus’ monastery near Jerusalem, which
was largely, if not predominantly, a Latin community. He considers
that these facts make it certain that the book was written in Latint.
For my own part, I cannot see the matter in this light: the 1 “Es
musste wol auffallen, dass in einer griechischen Schrift, die von
Erlebnissen mehrer Monche erzahlte und von einem Augenzeugen
verfasst sein wollte, diese Ménche lateinisch mit einander redeten.
Fir das Empfinden
 APPENDIX I. 263 course of the narrative makes it clear that
at least some of the travellers could speak Greek, and this Dr
Preuschen allows (p. 195, note); the party of travellers was very
likely of mixed nationality, and the one who spoke in Latin may not
have been familiar with Greek; or perhaps (as the context may fairly
suggest) he did not wish Copres (or the interpreter) to understand
what he was saying to his companions. In short, there are so many
alternatives and possibilities, that I do not think any conclusion can
be got out of the passage; certainly not any conclusion that will
stand against the body of internal evidence that has just been
adduced, backed as it is by the external evidence adduced in § 3 (p.
13) and § 16 (pp. 198—203). I had prepared a list of the Greek mss.
that have come under my inspection (some twenty in number); but
in view of the much fuller descriptive list given by Dr Preuschen (op.
cit. 137—152) there seems to be no need for me to give one that of
necessity would be much less perfect. It may, however, be of use to
indicate the structure of the Greek book by giving the titles of the
chapters: references are added, by means of which the work may be
reconstructed out of two volumes of Migne’s Greek Patrology.
(Numbers in Roman figures refer to the chapters as incorporated in
the Long Recension of the Lausiac History, P. G. Xxxiv.: those in
Arabic figures to the columns of P. G. LXv., where the fragments
edited by Cotelier (Zecl. Graec. Mon. 11. 171 ff.) are reprinted. The
numbers prefixed to the chapters are those of Dr Preuschen’s
edition.) Prologue, 441; 1 John Lycop. (cf. sup. pp. 25—29); 2 Hor
(cf. sup. p. 38); 3 Ammon, xlviii.; 4 Be, xlix.; 5 Oxyrhynchus, 445; 6
Theonas, 1. ; 7 Elias, li.; 8 Apollos, lii.; 9 Ammoun, liii.; 10 Copres,
liv.; 11 Pater-. muthius, 448; 12 Surus, Esias, Paul and Anuph, lv.—
lviii.; 13 Helle, lix.; 14 Apelles, lx.; 15 John, lxi.; 16 Paphnutius, ]xii.
—lxv.; 17 Pityrion, Ixxiv.; 18 Eulogius, lxxv.; 19 Isidore, lxxi.; 20
Sarapion, Ixxvi.; 21 Apollonius, lxvi., lxvii.; 22 Dioscorus, lxviii.; 23
Nitria, lxix.; 24 Ammonius the Tall, lxx.; 25 Didymus, 456; 26
Chronides and Three Brothers, 456; 27 Evagrius, 448; 28 Macarius
Aeg. ($$ 2, 3, 5 on col. 1050, P. G. xxxlv.; and other matter); 29
Amoun of Nitria (a short introduction ; §§ 1, 2 on col. 1026; and cf.
sup. p. 37); 30 Macarius Alex. (an introduction; and § 4 on col.
1050); 31 Paul the Simple (cf. sup. pp. 31—35) ; griechischer Leser
lag es unzweifelhaft weit niher, sie sich griechisch redend zu denken.
So korrigierte man mit leiser Anderung pwpaort in pjua und der
Anstoss war beseitigt. Aus dieser Stelle und der Geschichte, die der
Text an dieser Stelle gehabt hat, scheint sich mir mit Sicherheit zu
ergeben, dass die griechische Form secundir ist und nur als eine
Bearbeitung des lateinischen Originales zu gelten hat” (p. 196).
 264 APPENDIX I. 32 Piammon, lxxii.; 33 John of Diolcos,
lxxiii.; 34 Epilogue, cl. (2nd §, ef. col. 1252 D). (ii) The Latin Version.
It has been shown in § 3 (p. 11) that the Latin version was made by
Rufinus. At the end of c. 29 of the Latin there is a reference to
Rufinus’ own Keel. Hist., which was not written before 400.
Therefore the date of the version may be fixed between 400 and
410, the year of Rufinus’ death; Dr Preuschen considers 402 or 403
to be a probable date (op. cit. 203—5). Thus the version was made
within six or eight years of the writing of the book. In regard to the
Latin text, Rosweyd’s edition (with which Vallarsi’s, reprinted in P. Z.
Xx1., is identical) is based on twenty Mss., one of which was written
in 819 (Prolegomenon, xxiv). The numerous authorities for the
version which have come under my notice present the same text. Dr
Preuschen, however, informs us that a Munich ms. of the ninth
century (cod. lat. 6393) contains a better text (op. cit. 163). When
we compare the Latin with the Greek, it appears that in c. 1 (John
Lycop.) there are two enlargements (cf. sup. p. 22, note 1); from c.
2 to c. 22 (lat. c. 20), the portion describing the monks of the
Thebaid, the Latin and Greek agree on the whole very closely ; but
in the concluding portion of the book, that which deals with the
monks of the Nitrian desert, great divergencies exist, the Latin being
considerably longer than the Greek, and in certain Lives (e.g. the
two Macarii and Paul the Simple) almost wholly different from it,
while the Latin conclusion of Amoun of Nitria is much shorter!
Professor Robinson in the Introduction to his edition of the Philocalia
has occasion to examine Rufinus’ character as a translator of Origen
; he finds that his translations are usually paraphrastic, clauses being
repeated or inserted to bring out the meaning, so that it is the
general thought that is reproduced rather than the individual
sentence; in one case “he has expanded his author into nearly twice
the original compass, adding much explanatory matter of his own”;
in others the original is abbreviated almost beyond recognition (pp.
xxxi—xxxix). There would therefore be little difficulty in attributing to
Rufinus most of the differences that exist between the Greek and
Latin forms of the Hist. Mon. But some of the differences must, I
think, be attributed to other causes. In the first place, there is
reason to believe that the Latin text has been interpolated here and
there by later copyists. In the additional matter at the beginning of
c. 1, we read: “Soli Deo wacans, non diebus non noctibus a
colloguiis Dei et oratione cessabat” (p. 450). There is nothing 1 Cf.
supra, p. 37, where the two texts are printed; on pp. 31—35 the two
texts may be compared in the beginning of Paul the Simple.
 APPENDIX I. 265 corresponding to these words in the
Greek; but they occur more than once in the office of St Cecilia’s
day, being taken from the Old Latin Acts of that Saint. In regard to
these Acts, the date at which they were written is the only point of
interest here; and there seems to be a consensus of opinion among
modern writers of all schools that they are not older than about the
beginning of the fifth century. De Rossi holds that they are not even
a re-edition of earlier Acts, but were newly composed towards the
year 400 from traditions embodying a story true in its main outlines).
Erbes discusses De Rossi’s theory, and places the composition of the
Acts after 4862. Thus it seems that these Acts were not even written
during Rufinus’ lifetime ; in any case it is in the highest degree
unlikely that he ever read them; still less likely is it that he should
have known the words in question through their liturgical use in St
Cecilia’s office. Whoever introduced them into the Latin Historia
Monachorum can hardly have taken them directly from the Acts, but
must have been familiar with them through their frequent
occurrence in the liturgy on St Cecilia’s day. This familiarity would
not have been gained from the primitive liturgical use of such Acts,
viz. to be read out publicly as a continuous narrative in the Church
where the Martyr’s feast was being celebrated ; but from the later
custom, which selected striking sentences from the Acts, and
repeated them again and again in antiphons and responsories, as at
the present day. But such a practice brings us to a date certainly
later than Rufinus. Lastly, it will hardly be suggested that the words
were introduced into the Acts from Rufinus’ translation of the
Historia Monachorum: the Acts are clearly their original place. It
seems therefore certain that this sentence, and probably along with
it the whole Latin enlargement in which it occurs, must be credited
to a later copyist. Again, in the account of Paul the Simple (c. 31)
the following short homily is found in the Latin but not in our Greek
text : Ex cuius exemplo docebat beatus Antonius, quod si quis welit
ad perfectionem uelociter peruenire, non sibi ipse fieret magister,
nec propriis uoluntatibus obediret, etiam si rectum uideatur esse
quod uellet; sed secundum mandatum Saluatoris obseruandum esse,
ut ante omnia unusquisque abneget semetipsum sibi, et renuntiet
propriis uoluntatibus, quia et Saluator ipse dixit: Ego ueni non ut
faciam uoluntatem meam, sed eius qui misit me. et utique uoluntas
Christi non erat contraria uoluntati Patris ; sed qui uenerat
obedientiam docere, non inueniretur obediens, si propriam faceret
uoluntatem. quanto ergo magis nos non iudicabimur inobedientes, si
faciamus proprias uoluntates. Now the following expressions occur in
St Benedict’s Rule :— “Si ad exaltationem illam caelestem wolumus
uelociter peruenire” (c.7), cf. “ad perfectionem conuersationis qui
festinat” (c. 78); uoluntatibus ' Roma Sotterranea, 11. xl sq. Bishop
Lightfoot gives a précis of De Rossi’s theory (Ignatius and Polycarp,
1. 516—522). 2 Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch, 1888, p. 1 ff.
 266 APPENDIX I. oboedientes (c. 5, ed. WOlfflin ; Vulg.
woluptatibus) ; “abrenuntians propriis uoluntatibus” (Prol.).
Moreover the two texts are cited in the Rule, and with the same
peculiarities of reading :—abnegare semetipsum sili (c. 4); and non
ueni facere woluntatem meam sed eius qui misit me, twice (cc. 5
and 7). The szb¢ does not occur in the Vg. in Luke ix. 23, nor in the
parallel passages ; but it may be seen from Sabatier that it was an
O. L. reading, though not a common one. The second text, John vi.
38, stands thus in the Vulgate: Descendi de caelo non ut faciam
uoluntatem meam, sed uoluntatem eius qui misit me; and this is the
reading also of the Old Latin. So that the Historia Monachorum and
St Benedict’s Rule agree in having went in place of descendi de
caelo, and in omitting uoluntatem in the second clause!. The
agreements between this passage of the Historia Monachorum and
St Benedict’s Rule, both in regard to these unusual readings of N. T.
texts, and in regard to the other three forms of expression verbally
identical in both, establish beyond question a relation of dependency
between the two works. That St Benedict should quote this work of
Rufinus need cause no surprise ; he does so in several places. But it
seems unlikely that he should have used this one passage in six
different parts of his Rule, adopting words and thoughts not
particularly striking, and especially taking from it unusual readings of
the Scripture. On the other hand, some monk copying the work, and
wishing to introduce a little homily on obedience, and having St
Benedict’s Rule imprinted on his memory by daily use, would quite
easily and naturally string together the familiar words and phrases:
propria is used with woluntas four times in this passage and seven
times in the Rule. The little dogmatic excursus on the Will of Christ is
unlike anything else found in the book. Indeed the whole passage
has the air of an interpolation. I think the two passages just
discussed are evidence that the Latin text has suffered interpolation
at the hands of copyists. Nor will anyone familiar with the
phenomena encountered in the handing down of texts find any
difficulty in the idea that the extant Latin mss. are all descended
from a single interpolated ancestor. But even if the theory of
interpolation be admitted, it must not be hastily assumed that all the
differences between the Greek and the Latin are to be attributed to
Rufinus and his copyists ; the question will be further investigated
when we treat of the History of the Text. (iii) The Syriac and Oriental
Versions. There are among the Syriac ss. at the British Museum
copies of three versions of the Hist. Mon. and remnants of a fourth.
1 Phaebadius of Agen cites the text in the same way, and a few
authorities are given for one or other of the variants: but the
readings were not common O. L. (cf. Sabatier, and Wordsworth and
White).
 APPENDIX I. 267 Manuscript Reference No. in Wright
Century Remarks Version I Add. 17176 ff. 2—57 DCCCCXXIV. | A.D.
532 | Complete, except Helles Add. 12173 ff. 58—117 DCCCCXXIII. |
vi or vu. | First half very incomplete Add. 14648 ff. 48—58
DCCCCXLIII. vI Helles to end Add. 14579 | ff. 79, 148—165 |
pcccvirt. A.D. 913 | Extracts Add. 12175 | ff. 200—210 DCCXXVII.
A.D. 534 | Ends with Paphnutius Add. 12174 ff. 190—200 DOCCCLE.
| A.D. 1197 | cc. 8, 9, 16, 10, 11, 21 of the Greek Add. 17177 ff. 94
—130 DCCCCXXV. VI. ec. 10, 11, 12 of the Greek! Version II Add.
14650 ff. 30—68 DCCCCXLIX. | vi or vir.| Complete Version III Add.
14646 ff. 80—133 DCCCCXXXVII. vI. Ends with Helles Add. 14609 ff.
44—90 DCCCCXLI, VI. Complete Add. 14732 | ff. 159166
DCCCCLXIII. xitt. John of Lycopolis Version IV Add. 14597 | ff.
122136 DOCKXX. A.D. 569 | Extracts Add. 17177 ff. 86—94
DCCCCXXV. VI. John of Lycopolis In the first four copies of Version I.
the Hist. Mon. is closely connected with a great set of
Apophthegmata entitled “ Histories of the Egyptian Monks.” It is
Version 1. that Anan Isho used for Book III. of his Paradise: this is
accordingly printed in Bedjan’s edition : certain lives, however, are
wanting in the Paradise (the two Macarii and Paul the Simple); and
theré are some displacements—the Hpilogue has been transferred to
the middle of the book (c. 19) and is called “The triumphs of the
blessed Fathers who worked miracles.” In all three Syriac versions
the concluding (Nitrian) portion of the work agrees with the Greek,
not with the Latin. The Armenian Vitae Patrum (vol. 1.; cf. sup. p.
97) contains a number of the Lives from the Hist. Mon., some in two
versions, Dr Preuschen records the important readings in his critical
apparatus ; he believes that the Armenian is derived from the Syriac
(op. cit. 160). In his volume of Mémoires (Fase. ii., 1895, pp. 650—
3) M. Amélineau has published two short Sahidic fragments of the
account of John of Lycopolis in the Hist. Mon., corresponding to P. G.
xxxiv. 1107 p— 11088, and 11138, 1115B and c (omitting all the
Hist. Laus. matter, cf. sup. pp. 26—9). These fragments have
escaped Dr Preuschen’s notice, but they are of little importance:
they represent an ordinary Greek text (cf. Appendix ITI.), 1 T am
responsible for Dr Preuschen’s statement that these Lives belong to
Version IV.; but it is only the Life of John of Lycopolis, which
immediately precedes them, that belongs to Version IV.
 268 APPENDIX I. (iv) The History of the Text. It is right to
state that the following investigation was written out long before the
appearance of Dr Preuschen’s book; I avail myself, however, of his
careful work on the subject (op. cit. 163—170 and 180—191). I shall
first present by means of a diagram what I believe to be the general
outline of the history of the text and of the mutual relations of the
textual sources, as indicated by the authorities that I have been able
to examine. I shall then make some comments in explanation of the
diagram. Timotheus, c. 396. Lat,c. 403. Sozomen’s abridgments I'
(archetype of c. 440. the Greek mss.). Syr. II. c. 500. Syr. 1. c. 500.
Anan Isho’s redaction c. 650. pe (Paris ms. 1627). B a in eee Ps G
(Textus Receptus found in all known Greek pp a mss. except DP).
 APPENDIX I. 269 In commenting on this Table I shall begin
from the bottom and work upwards. (1) I use the letter G to denote
the Textus Receptus, which is found in all the Greek mss. known to
me (and to Dr Preuschen), with the single exception of the Paris ms.
1627, which I designate by Dr Preuschen’s sign, P®>, A common
feature of all these G mss. is that the name Piammon (c. 32) is
corrupted into Ammonas: Piammon is attested by lat., Soz., syr. I.
(Philemon), sy7. 11. (Pomnos), and it is found in P*®, All the Mss.
containing the text G are therefore descended from a single
archetype, y, in which the corruption in Piammon’s name had been
made. Dr Preuschen shows that they fall into two groups a and 8;
and in a had occurred the further corruption of pyya for popaori (cf.
sup. p. 262). In syr. 111. this same corruption is found, and
Piammon is called Amon. Therefore syr. 111. is derived from a Ms. of
the type G. (2) Ifthe reader will turn back to § 5 and compare col. A
line 15, p. 26, and col. A line 25, p. 28, he wiil see that the words
oikei@ Oavdr@ 6 Baoidevs TeXeuTHo es Occur in both places. It is
unlikely that this repetition can be genuine; and when the contexts
are examined, I think it will be felt that the words are in place the
second time they occur, but out of place the first. This impression is
confirmed by the fact that in lat., syr. 1. (cf. Bedjan 334), and syr.
11., the clause occurs only in the second place}, I think it may be
taken that the twofold occurrence of the clause is a doublet, and
that at the beginning of the chapter it is an interpolation. In P® the
clause occurs in the first place; in the second, as pointed out in the
critical apparatus (p. 29) a page had evidently been lost at this very
point in one of the ancestors of the Ms. We are therefore justified in
concluding that this common corruption runs through all known
Greek mss. of the Hist. Mon., and that therefore they are all derived
from a common ancestor, I. Dr Preuschen has not noticed this point;
but he has been led to the same conclusion by another common
corruption, pixpév instead of prapdv (cf. lat. and syr. 1.), towards the
beginning of the account of Patermuthius (c. 11). (Op. cat. 169.) (3)
From what has been said it appears that we have two independent
representatives of I, namely the single ms, P®, and y, the archetype
of the other Greek mss. Unfortunately P® is a late ms. (cent. xiii.)
and is in a very corrupt condition: probably Dr Preuschen is correct
in his surmise that its text has undergone a literary revision. Dr
Preuschen points out (p. 167) that there are a number of remarkable
agreements between P® and syr. I. 1 have indicated on p. 27 (col.
C, lines 22—25) an agreement with lat.; and many other instances
are to be found throughout the book. 1 In syr. 111. the passage
occurs in the first place only: but this version has been shown to be
derived from +: probably the translator did not care to repeat the
passage. In syr. rv. it occurs in the first place; the second vac, as the
only copy is imperfect at the end of the Life. There are not sufficient
materials for locating syr. 1v. in the Table,
 270 APPENDIX I. Where P® is thus attested by syr. 1., syr.
11. or lat. (all independent of 1) its readings evidently must claim
our best attention}, (4) Syr. 1. and syr. 11. represent Greek mss.
that take us behind YP, but still are in substantial agreement with it.
Where Yr differs from Jat., especially in the shorter form of the
Nitrian portion of the book (gr. 23, lat. 21, to end) both Syriac
versions support fT. I have placed syr. 11 a step higher in the
pedigree than syr. 1., because syr. 11. agrees with /at. and Sozomen
in placing Elias after Helles, whereas syr. L, along with I, places him
earlier in the book, next to Theonas. The Syriac versions are
evidence that the Greek text represented by I existed, and was
widely current, before the close of the fifth century, 7.e. within a
century of the date at which the book was written. (5) A still earlier
witness to the text is Sozomen. It has, I think, been amply
demonstrated in § 8 that Sozomen had in his hands the Hist. Mon.,
and further details on the subject will be found in Appendix IL, with
all the references, which need not be repeated here?. Sozomen’s
History was completed between the years 439 and 450; so that his
copy of the Hist. Mon. was written probably not later than 430. Most
of his abridgments are so curt as to be of little use for textual
criticism; e.g. vI. 28 is only about one-twentieth of the length of the
corresponding parts of the source. But here and there he is available
and highly useful as an authority for the text. (6) The Latin version,
being by Rufinus, must have been made within ten years or so of
the composition of the work. It was not made from the RUFINUS, cc.
21 AND 22, Venimus autem et ad Nitriae famosissimum in omnibus
Aegypti monasteriis locum, qui quadraginta fere milibus abest ab
Alexandria, ex nomine uici adiacentis in quo nitrum colligitur, Nitriae
uocabulum trahens, prospiciente hoc, credo, tunc iam diuina
prouidentia, quod in illis locis peccata hominum, tamquam nitro
sordes, abluenda essent et abolenda. in hoc igitur loco quinquaginta
fere, aut non multo minus cernuntur uicina sibi, et sub uno posita
patre, tabernacula, in quibus aliqui plures simul, aliqui pauci,
nonnulli etiam singulares habitant, et mansione quidem aliqui diuisi,
animo autem et fide et charitate coniuncti et inseparabiles manent. 1
What Dr Preuschen has given us is in effect y; he has seldom
adopted even the attested special readings of P°. 2 In this main
thesis Dr Preuschen concurs (cf. infra, App. I1.).
 APPENDIX I. 271 author’s autograph, for into the copy used
by Rufinus had already crept a corruption in the word ’Ay@pews,
from which Sozomen, the Syriac versions, and © and y were free; it
therefore did not enter into the line of descent of our Greek mss.,
though other corruptions of the same word found their way into
some of them at a later stage,—after y (cf. supra, p. 14). (7) It is
important to note that in a number of easily recognisable points
Rufinus and Sozomen agree together against the Greek and Syriac}.
A few examples will bring out this point. Concerning Anuph: Ruf. (c.
10) ex quo nomen Saluatoris in persecutione confessus sum. Soz.
(iil. 14) ad’ of rpa@rov ev trois Siwypots Umrep Tov Sdypatos
wpooynoe. Gr. (c. 12; ef. A 58) e& 08 rd rod Garnpos dvopa eri THs
yns @podrsynoa. (Compare the whole of the passages. Sy77r. agree
with gr.) Concerning Apelles: Ruf. (c. 15) in silentio noctis......
aufugit. Soz. (vi. 28) VUKTOP. 04... am éSpacev. Gr. (c. 14; cf. A 60)
om. om. Syr. 1. (Bedjan 397) om. om. (It is only the particular words
indicated that are wanting in gr. and sy. 1.) Dr Preuschen has gone
over the ground very carefully, and has fully demonstrated the close
relation between Ruf. and Soz. (Op. cit. 183 ff.) But the palmary case
is the description of the desert of Nitria, the threefold text of which
is here given in full. SoOZOMEN, VI. 31. GREEK, ©. 23 (Preuschen).
Kadovo. d€ Tov yapov rovrov KarnxOnpev dé kai eis Nerpiay,
Nerpiav, kaOore kon tis éotiv 6uopos > 2 \ , , > ‘ €v 7} TO viTpov
avAdéyovotv. ov TO tuxov dé wAnOos evtavda edirocdpet: > A , > >
A , ada povaotnpia Av audi mevtTnKovTa Andros exdpeva, TA pev
ouvoiiov, va woddovs Kal peyddovs avayo7 ~ Ta S€ ka” Eavtovs
oikovvTar. pytas é€wpdkapev, TovTo pev éyxoplovs, tovto b€ Kali
E€vous, adddAndovs Tais apetais UmepBdddovtas, kal
pidroVIK@TEpoY Tmpos THY aoKxnow SraKeLHévous, macdv Te
apetny évderkvupevous, Kal aywvitouévous ev TH moXtTeia
aGhAndous brepBdddew. Kal oi pev > ~ \ \ , c \ \ avTa@v mept tHv
Oewpiay, oi dé rept 1 A statement in the Note on p. 57 supra is not
quite correct: the monk named Apollos in gr. 8 and Apollonius in lat.,
is named in syr.1., 11., r11., Apolo and Apolon, but not Apollonius,